Drinking Liberally

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.

Tonight we’ll just celebrate a brief break from those infernal primary races.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Share:

Related

Comments

Roger Rabbit rarely attends DL due to the global warming caused by the crowds of fans, papparrazzi, GOP spies, and process servers who follow me in their fume-spewing cars to all my public appearances.

Little Scottie McClellan has a kiss and tell book coming out. Here’s the kicker of all kickers:

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush’s liberal critics, and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably TOO deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.“

Wingnuts have never explained how a media owned almost exclusively by rightwing billionaires came to be so “liberal.”

The explanation, of course, is that to a wingnut “liberal” is name-calling (they’re so far removed from reality they don’t realize that nowadays getting dissed by neoconvicts is tantamount to an endorsement), and because they dislike both reality and truth, they attack media objectivity as “liberal bias.” What they really want is for the media to be lapdog propagandists for their fascist movement.

2. YLB spews: … McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush’s liberal critics, and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably TOO deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. … Say it loud and say it proud, the myth of the “liberal media” is dead.

So the incompetence of the liberal press to do their job becomes the proof that the media isn’t liberal?

Hey doggie. My friend that sells advertising at AM1090 says they have so many new listeners that they now sell their 30 second spots for $75 and up. When they first started, their spots were $25 to $35.

Liberal talk radio isn’t subsidised (like half Hannity’s stations) but it is profitable….

In the “Ooh, that’s gonna leave a stain!” department, remember when McCain was telling home-buyers caught up in the sub-prime lending crisis that they’d just have to suck it up and deal with it? Turns out that Phil Gramm, the guy primarily responsible for crafting that policy–which was abundantly favorable to lenders not borrowers, was, at the time, a registered lobbyist for a European bank that has just written down $37 billion in losses on loan derivatives.

As a follow-up to my comment at 12, the bank in question (UBS in Switzerland) is now advising some members of their US banking team to stay out of the United States. Why? In order to avoid indictment.

So, we have UBS, a Swiss bank, having just written off $37 billion in losses on mortgage-based derivatives advising former US team members to avoid indictment by staying out of the US, and we have McCain’s chief Economic advisor, Phil Gramm, writing policies about mortgage-based derivatives while still registered as a lobbyist for this bank.

But, it doesn’t stop there. The legislation that largely made it even possible for banks like UBS to trade in mortgage-backed securities was largely written and sponsored by none other than Phil Gramm.

You see, this is the kind of crap we get when we actually implement conservative ideology.

You are wrong, oh lowly Loser-tarian bung hole, the country will vote Democrat this year – not Republican and certainly not Loser-tarian.

Not all media personalities are right wingers. This is why you are a Loser-tarian — you simply don’t get the issues. This is the reason why Loser-tarians never founded this nation and why you don’t get traction with the public. You’re out of touch, out of step and out of sync with mainstream America, otherwise your message would resonate with Americans. It never has and it never will.

There is no Liberal Biased Media, ask Scott McClellan and the 4,100 American families who lost their loved ones in Iraq because the media was “too indifferent” to the White House on their PROPAGANDA to invade Iraq.

Actually the “liberals,” in the true sense these days, are the Libertarians.

The meaning of both words has changed over time. In the late 19th century, for example, “libertarian” was more closely related to the ideas of communism and anarchism. This game of co-opted semantics can play both ways.

“Liberals,” as we know them, are simply Socialists using the word “liberal” to describe themselves.

Bullshit. The primary distinguishing characteristic of “socialism” is state ownership of the means of production. There isn’t a liberal in sight within American politics who advocates state ownership of the means of production, and any attempt to label modern-day liberals as “socialists” is really little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to associate liberals with other failed ideologies, in particular, soviet socialism.

Joe @ 19 is correct regarding the historical context. Using political, philosophical, or party labels to equate current political points is a basic, if common, error in historical analysis.

Although the Republican party can trace it’s roots to Lincoln & Teddy Roosevelt, neither would be comfortable with today’s Republican party, and today’s Republican party wouldn’t be comfortable with Teddy Roosevelt’s conservation and anti-monopoly practices.

Likewise, the Democratic party traces it’s roots to Thomas Jefferson, but would be uncomfortable with quite a few of his philosophies, also.

Trying to equate 19th century European philosophies with current 21st century U.S. political groups is even more problematic. Where do Hegal and Sarte’ fit in? How does the 1848 rebellions, and the philosophies of liberalism and marxism created in response to the French-German-Austrian authoritinarianism, translate across the ocean and across the divide of another century and a half? Answer: Not very well. The labels are inherently misleading when applied in such a fallacious manner.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.